“The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.”

=

Arie de Geus – Dutch business strategist <and assumed pot smoker because he is dutch>

———–

“You do not merely want to be considered the best of the best. You want to be the only ones who do what you do.”

–

Jerry Garcia

Grateful Dead lead singer <and assumed pot smoker because he was the lead singer of the Grateful Dead>

——–

I speak with a lot of business owners. And I can often discern the best of the best with one word <or the words surrounding this one word>.

Unique.

Unique makes my bullshitometer go off. Now. I assume there actually have to be some unique products out there in this wide world of ours because over 500,000 patents are filed every year in the good ole USofA. That said. I admit that I have not run across a whole shitload of these unique products/services in my career even though I have met my foir share of patent owners.

Yes. Having this unique conversation with a patent owner excruciatingly painful. They keep saying “I have a patent therefore it is unique”and you keep saying “yes, sure, and the unique benefit to the buyer is ???”andyou often find that this conversation is a deadly doom loop with no conclusion but frustration.

I imagine the real point is that everyone wants to be the best at whatever it is they elect to do the best. Everyone would like to be the only ones who do what you do <assuming what you do is actually of some value to people>. Everyone wants their business to be ‘unique’ in some form or fashion. And, if you try hard enough, I imagine every business can be ‘unique’ at something. I also imagine if you try hard enough you can learn to dance on the head of a pin.

Regardless, the point of me writing this is that I believe somewhere along the way something got lost.

What do I mean? Well. Since the beginning of time (in marketingese) the concept of unique has been important but I believe it was Ted Bates who simplified <dumbed it down> for the rest of the world to grasp in a usable form by developing what he, and his advertising agency, called the USP <the unique selling proposition>.

Excellent idea. Dumbed a great idea down for anyone and everyone to use. Unfortunately it has all gone wrong since then.

The concept was unique “proposition” not “unique” <all by itself>. Their point was … well … just that simple … proposing to people some kind of proposition that was meaningful and seemingly unique <at minimum creating a perception of uniqueness>.

Please note the nuance. You need not actually be unique in actuality but rather you simply needed to be able to tell people you were unique in some form or fashion. The concept implied how you told your proposition was as important as the product-service proposition itself. The brilliance in the concept is that it recognizes most products and services are not truly unique, however, that didn’t mean you could explain your product-service in a way that wasn’t unique (from a selling perspective).

And here is where it all went awry … in our world of:

(a) a lack of desire to use someone else’s idea, even if it is a great idea, and

(b) the belief, the theory, we should be simplifying even the simplified <oreven the most dumbed down> whereby we lose the nuance

Ultimately … the ‘experts’ started focusing solely on the ‘unique.’ I envision the conversation went something along these lines … “okay, let me simplify this because it is pretty simply … what makes you unique? Answer that and we can get started.”

Well. Here is the deal. A unique selling proposition is rarely a simple process or outcome and discerning what is truly meaningfully unique is rarely simple.

The point? There is a big difference between “what is your unique selling proposition?” and “what makes you unique?” Both can be valuable discussions, but they are not the same discussions.

I believe the problem is that somewhere along the way marketing, advertising, brand people forgot the nuanced selling proposition concept and simply focused on some (mostly) unattainable facet – unique. And therein lies the bigger problem. Identifying the false unique. Because it is inherent nature (at least in the business world) to find what you seek. If I am told I must find something unique than, dammit, I am sure gonna find something unique … even if I have to quasi make it up.

However, fooling yourself does not mean fooling others (although it is a common trap) in fact consumers/buyers are rarely fooled — and if they are … just once.

Therefore ‘unique’ is one of my trap, or test, words in a business discussion. It forces some brutal honesty into a discussion which can set the platform for the type of business relationship you will have.

Be forewarned <part 1> … many providers of products and/or services misconstrue what is unique. Service or ‘my people’ are not unique. Well. They are to your company but they aren’t in any discernible way to the outside world. Generalizing … those are features of your company … of any company for that matter … therefore to be truly unique it would have to translate into some discernible benefit <by ‘discernible’ I mean recognizable to the human eye or the average bear>.

Be forewarned <part 2> … many providers of products and/or services lie to themselves in this discussion but in my experience it is mostly ‘white lie’ in that they are truly seeking a real distinctness. To be fair, I also admit that I like it when a company has some vision of grandeur <even if it is slightly delusional>. I find far too many companies do not aim high enough.

In the end, the company’s attitude on ‘unique’ may be slightly aggravating in a discussion, but it is mostly harmless.

The harming of a Profession.

It is the other side of the table that is what I find harmful and actually quite disappointing. It is the groups of professionals who agree to the white lie, maybe facilitate or encourage the white lie <delusions> or, at the worst, are oblivious to the white lie. There are far too many marketing & advertising professionals out there in the business world today who are abusing or are simply oblivious to the reality of unique <the reality thereof as well as the nuance of positioning in a unique way>. As professionals we should be able to discern between a real uniqueness and a created <perception> uniqueness and should be able to assist a company in understanding it.

Not enough marketing/advertising/branding professionals do. Regardless of that last mini-rant the best example I have seen in my career of a company who understands this nuance between USP and Unique is Proctor and Gamble.

For good or bad (like them or dislike them) they constantly, relentlessly, seek a unique formula, unique product, unique benefit or simply a unique product – thru innovation.

But that is simply a vision and focus. They have the smarts enough so that in lieu of actually having one, i.e., they fully recognize when they don’t have one, they are masters at being distinct, i.e., “I may not be truly unique but there will be no doubt what benefit I provide and the value to it.” And truth be told … that last description, being distinct, is almost unique in itself in today’s garbled & complex for the sake of being complex marketing world. P&G wins simply thru focus and clarity (being distinct) … sometimes thru a real uniqueness and sometimes thru creating a perceived uniqueness.

Smart company those P&G folk.

Now, conversely, oddly enough, the worst at this whole uniqueness thing is maybe Apple. Yeah. Apple. They are solely focused on “unique features” (not benefits). By the way … that is bad as a long term strategy.

Albeit they are an engineering company and not a marketing one, which explains the focus, but making yourself unique thru features means that your sole vision is to <and forever> constantly make your own features obsolete. Because the moment you don’t make yourself obsolete you are no longer ‘unique’ but rather a commodity.

It is a fine line and a dangerously tenuous line. Personally I believe Apple is doomed for eventual failure (albeit if there was ever an industry that could exist on features it would be technology) because all they care about is developing features and marketing the features. But, hey, that’s me.

Ok. Back to unique.

I fully understand everyone wants to be the best at something <which is their uniqueness>.

I fully understand that there are truly some widgets with some meaningful describable benefits that are unique.

I fully understand that what most people are construing as ‘unique’ these days is meaningless drivel. At its worst it is simply mental masturbation.

I fully understand that there are also a lot of missed opportunities for good meaningful “unique selling propositions’ floating out there in the business universe simply because many people just don’t have it on their radar as a meaningful objective.

On that last thought, positioning <using words to create a perception of uniqueness> is valuable and an opportunity. It is not ‘lying’ to the public to create sales.In fact I would argue it is smart and a reflection of your only true competitive advantage … the ability to learn faster than your competition.

Why? Uniqueness is NEVER alone. Standing beside it hugging it closely is someone called “Benefit.” They are inextricably attached as companions for life. And as you learn more about what the buyer of your product really wants <that Benefit person> your ‘uniqueness’ may actually change … radically or nominally … it doesn’t matter. It may change to meet the needs & wants of the buyer.

Let me close by combining Jerry’s thought and Arie’s thought … and, no, I am not going to suggest you have to smoke pot in order to think your way through all of this …

– being the best, or the only one to do something, is irrelevant if it has no value or benefit to others

– unique is rare and often fleeting

However, adaptable ‘best’ and adaptable ‘uniqueness’ is neither fleeting nor useless and if sustained will maintain market leadership <although it is extremely difficult to sustain>. And the key to those is to be to be the only fastest learner in your category. Easy? No. But, remember, business is often not lived best gently.

Heck. If you do focus on being the only fastest learner in your category you may actually not only have a unique selling proposition but a unique product/service to offer.

“I knew I wasn’t the best and that I probably never would be. I was always competing, and I did all right, but I was never number one. I knew I wasn’t the best singer but I knew I didn’t have to be the best. My intense compulsion to write and sing my songs along with my persistence and dedication would carry me when I got bogged down in doubt and fear. And my imperfections would distinguish me. However they tortured me sometimes, my imperfections were what made me unique.”

======

From Juliana Hatfield biography “When I grow Up”

————————-

This is about self reflection, self awareness and aspects of growing up <although I think a lot of people could use some of these learnings>.

The opening quote is about as thoughtful a ‘growing up’ thought as anyone could have. Yet. It almost seems un-American <’I knew I wasn’t the best’> while at the same time an excellent recognition of ‘I didn’t have to be the best.’

Whew. I wish we taught this more often. To kids, to employees, heck, to people in general. Competing is the name of the game. Only one can be the best. There is only one number one <hence its name>. So that one thought, ‘I can be successful and not have to be the best’, is fabulous.

In addition.

As we ‘compete’ in Life I imagine everyone is tortured in some way by our own imperfections but if we take a moment we can revel in those same imperfections as the things that make us unique. Interestingly, we can often be tortured by both things — uniqueness and imperfections. So often we want to be ‘like others’ despite not wanting to be like everyone else. Yikes. Now if there isn’t a paradox in life I don’t know what is.

Regardless.

Standing out in any way can be painful <at its worst> and a burden <at almost all times>. The sooner we can accept that <and hopefully teach our kids this> the sooner you accept the burden and move on.

Trite thought about individual imperfections/uniqueness, but, it is what it is <they are what they are>.

You can either invest a shitload of energy wishing it was something else or invest the energy being ‘persistent and dedicated’ toward something so you don’t get bogged down.

Recognition, self-awareness, is also a glimpse of the fact you sacrifice some aspects of ‘growing up’ when you put some blinders on professionally. In other words, your career becomes – or dominates – your life and other things inevitably get sacrificed.

Along this self awareness path we have to make some choices. They often get reflected in the things we all do on occasion despite the fact someone, who supposedly knows better, tells us it is or is not the thing to do. I am not going to suggest we should ignore what other people tell us. In fact. You do listen, choose t do or ignore. Inevitably this is often a lot of trial & error in finding out your own ‘what to do’ compass. Each time something happens you will always ask yourself ‘why’ or ‘what does this have to do with music <or your version of that>? Sometimes you will scratch your head and wonder, sometimes you will scream in frustration and sometimes, well, it turns out okay.

The one thing I know for sure? The inner voice develops over time. Along the way you hope to avoid looking like an idiot but <I hate to break the news to you> you will look like an idiot at some point.

At some point in childhood, in your working years, heck, as a parent — you will look like an idiot. Why? Because Life doesn’t come with a ‘how to’ manual. You learn ‘how to’ live life by doing and watching and listening <and being an idiot>.

Sure. At some point your inner voice matures but until then? You will do something at some point that will make you look like an idiot.

Sometimes part of your idiocy is driven by what most people call ‘your passion.’ While every job, every career, every person has its challenges and issues a lot of peple forge their way thru this obstacle course focused on “what is my passion.”

Well. The grass may look greener but even your passion comes with some issues. Yes. Even following your passion is work at some point. That doesn’t mean you don’t love it and aren’t happy you chose doing it, but everything and anything can become a grind. No one really tells you that when discussing ‘follow your passion.’

Lastly.

Confidence in self. Whew. People with confidence can seem so intimidating in their, well, confidence. It is a suit of armor that protects them from the rest of us ‘less confident’ people. But here’s the deal. Confidence doesn’t equal knowledge or skill or ability.

Simplistically, all confidence equals is confidence. It is simply an attitude <albeit it sometimes appears as a skill>. Until actions match attitude all you gots is a whole bunch of attitude. To be clear. Hollow confidence is hollow and will not get you shit or anywhere except in the shit and nowhere.

It seems un-american these days to suggest that confidence isn’t the key to success. But here is a Life thought to ponder … maybe it is simply being a little less insecure that can insure some success — not having more confidence.

Having less of something means getting more of something else? <sometimes a good Life formula>

Sure. Someone could probably argue that is confidence but I would suggest it is simply being lessening some weight slowing you down and rather than adding something that can pull you forward <but possibly is an additional burden>.

But, hey … that sounds a lot of some Law of Gravity or something like that and what the heck does that have to do with Life? Everything.

You don’t have to be the best. You don’t have to be the most confident. You don’t have to be perfect. All you have to be is your best version of you.

The world is indifferent to you. To anyone in fact. It chugs along doing what it does and forces you to jump on the roller coaster and hold on or forces you to decide to create your own experience.

Second.

That means you cannot be indifferent to the indifferent world or you will never make a difference (big, medium or small). More likely you will just get steamrolled by indifferent Life.

Third.

Not being indifferent means you have to pay attention. This is where it gets tricky. It gets tricky because Life squeezes you between events & people. Events happen and you have to keep your head on a swivel to not only see what is happening but try and get a sense of what is coming. People are, well, people. You actually don’t have to keep your head on a swivel because it is more like people just bounce off of you whether you like it or. Even worse? Someone you don’t even know who has made some decision in some place you weren’t even invited to is most likely creating something you need to be paying attention for.

Fourth.

So now we get to people. You can’t be completely indifferent to people, but you also can’t always let people make a difference on you. In Life we learn this lesson fairly early on <as soon as we walk into a grade school>. In business we get blindsided. We get blindsided because you think a lot of the school bullshit will not happen in the business world.

I could write a book on this topic but suffice it to say my message to the good people, the ones who want to play fair, maintain integrity and conduct business with dignity:

Someone will always find something nefarious in what you are doing.

Yeah. This sucks.

I will not call this conspiracy thinking but, in general, a business culture more often than not breeds a sense that <a> everyone is out for themselves and <b> there is no such thing as a truly altruistic business motivation. And while it would be naïve of me to suggest that avoiding those two thoughts as ‘stupid & untrue’ it is a little sad that those beliefs pretty much underlie every organization.

Please note, once again, the people aspect in everything I have noted. You may want to avoid things but you will find your destiny along the path you have chosen strewn with a shitload of people crossing your path uninvited and many unwelcome.

I say that because that is your career.

So let me suggest something <maybe a little contrarian>.

I would suggest that Life is best lived by not ignoring shit and avoiding shit but rather stepping into the world an deal with it. Sometimes that may mean side stepping some of the shit you don’t want to deal with and sometimes that may mean bludgeoning your way over and through some of the shit you don’t want to deal with but if you do this you actually have some control over your own destiny. I say that because the problem with trying to maintain your Life on a parallel track, and knowing that inevitably it will be crossed by people & shit you had been purposefully avoiding, is that you will always be reacting to the bullshit rather than proactively facing it.

Look.

While you may not care about business or business politics my point is my point you cannot avoid the world to conduct yourself in the ways & means you want to conduct yourself. You are stuck with the world, and in the world, whether you like it or not.

Oh.

The other thing you are stuck with is the fact whether you stay on your road of ‘how I’m gonna do things right’ engaged with the world or take another road to try and avoid the world you don’t like, well, you will meet your destiny.

The world is indifferent to the road you choose. So you should probably choose to not be indifferent and at least choose the road you want to be on rather than be stuck on one not of your choosing.

the bigger the world economy, the more powerful will be the smaller players. This is because they are more flexible, faster and more economical – not burdened by layers of bureaucracy. Computers and telecommunications, now affordable to small companies, allow them to compete globally, and deregulation and globalization of financial markets gives them access to capital. Computer-driven technology also makes it possible to produce small runs of customized “higher value-added” products aimed at niche markets. Products produced “just in time” save money on inventory, and they can be quickly improved to compete with rapidly changing technology and tastes. Big companies will break up into confederations of small, entrepreneurial units. Small interacting firms will form themselves into temporary mosaics to be more adaptive and productive.

Alvin Toffler

===========================

In June 2013 I wrote an incredibly long piece called “inside out leadership” which shared a number of thoughts about the Future of Work. My belief was that after a misguided unhealthy focus on “the customer is king/queen” businesses would refocus their efforts on their “inside” <values, mission, culture, beliefs> in order to not only engage with right customers but also to create their value.

This portion, reprised, focuses on autonomy, distributed leadership and what I was calling ‘agile companies’ back in 2013.

Leadership in the future will be defined by the inside aspect of their businesses not just in producing things but rather knowledge capital, the values surrounding that knowledge application which create the character/personality value, and how it is all managed. Ah. Managed. Maybe better said getting an organization to collectively think in a common direction so that the individuals can be empowered to produce, think & do effectively.

This means organizational leadership will be defined by the ability to not respond to the consumer but rather respond, and adapt, to the organizational inputs & needs <boy, there is a paradigm shift>.

Oddly, this means organizational “power”, in general, will depend on taking advantage of the inevitable cracks in the process created by speed <agility> — not seamless surges forward.

To be clear. Agility will create cracks. The cracks created by the events that were not pre-programmed or foreseen.

I imagine this means true leadership partially depends partially on chance <finding the opportunities to lead within the moment> and managing human behavior in a desired fashion. This doesn’t mean everything is accidental. Not everything is random. In fact power is found within predictability as well as randomness. Organizational Power implies combining chance, necessity, continuity, chaos and order.

To me this means the new inside out leaders will have more of an opportunity to create the necessary attitudinal shift in business world than in recent years. Smaller organizations are easier to create attitudinal and behavioral direction than larger organizations which means creating lots of smaller pieces and parts coalescing in a common direction can affect a larger cultural shift in larger organizations. Conceptually, these different smaller business “teams” will shift traditional power away from manager-bureaucrats forcing the creation of a new type of leader.

That said. I believe organizational morality <or value beyond profit> will become the leadership cornerstone within an organization. While morality and virtue are developed over time <via repeated decisions to choose what is right and to forego what is wrong> which typically means there is no quick fix to any organizational morality problems … lots of smaller pieces can be redirected in the here and now.

Today’s’ inside out leader faces a variety of challenges. I will speak to what I consider the two biggest:

– Embracing fragmented knowledge while empowering it through organizational ‘tribes’

There are two portions to this challenge – contradictory but compatible.

Individualism empowered by access to knowledge and organizational tribes embedded within organizations.

First.

Tribes. I didn’t coin this term and in fact Toffler may have used it in 1990 <Godin certainly has>. I have mixed feeling with the term. It exhibits a stronger cultural aspect than simply suggesting the younger generation of employees cluster into groups of likeminded people but it also doesn’t not encourage thoughts of openness/porous/shifting teams.

What I do like is it embraces the communal aspect of being comfortable in ‘tribes’ within a larger organization <organizations are made up of a number of tribes>. Not unlike the Iroquois nation there are various tribes co-existing under a common charter. Each with separate cultural nuances and rituals but clearly aligned on a bigger purpose.

I began there because today’s leader grew up under the ‘dog eat dog’, ‘big fish eat little fish’ and ‘kill or be killed’ every person for themselves organizational upward movement mentality.

Remember I shared these Toffler words earlier in the post:

“Big companies will break up into confederations of small, entrepreneurial units. Small interacting firms will form themselves into temporary mosaics to be more adaptive and productive.”

I would note Toffler didn’t recognize the cultural shift <more of a community/tribal character> but rather focused solely on the power shift <knowledge wealth>. That said. As the two connect <a cultural shift and a business power shift> the words he shared become even more powerful … and meaningful to a new inside out leader.

These smaller units are tribes within an organization <call them a ‘small team’ if you dislike tribe>.

Each with its own ‘power’ to be managed by a leader savvy enough to move pieces seamlessly and have the ability to empower disparate thoughts, and tribes, into an aligned organization. The new inside out leader will need to recognize the balance between managing individuals and managing teams <with tribal cultures>. Neither a one-size-fit –all mentality or a one-by-one management mentality will work and be successful. It will be about empowering tribe without having tribal war and permitting the natural team leaders to arise from the culture.

Second.

Fragmented knowledge <individualized empowerment through knowledge> A truth. Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. The truly revolutionary aspect of knowledge wealth, and the internet, is that it can be grasped by weak & poor as well as strong & wealthy which makes it a continuing threat to the powerful, even as they try and use it to enhance their own power.

Toffler said this:

Bureaucracy is also a ways of groupings “facts”. A firm neatly cut into department according to function, market, region, or products is after all a collection of cubbyholes in which specialized information and personal experience are stored. The vaunted “rationality” of bureaucracy goes out the window. Power, always a factor, now replaces reason as the basis for decision. The power structure based on control of information was clear, therefore: While specialists controlled the cubbyholes, managers controlled the channels.”

Reading this also explains why every leader in a hierarchy is tempted <if not actually desirable of> to control the quantity, quality, and distribution of knowledge within his or her domain.

The internet has created a power shift by taking it from solely under those with legal or formal position and towards those with the ability to absorb & use knowledge.

It became a command/control leader’s headache that knowledge could slink into any office space and anyone smart enough to use it could become smarter than the person they reported to. It is easy to see that this organization fragmentation driven by real/actual knowledge could easily become chaos unless leaders begin showcasing a different ability than maybe we have valued up until today.

This means today’s leaders need to be assimilators of fragments.

They need to encourage empowered individuals and tribes to accumulate knowledge and then redirecting or gathering disparate pieces of knowledge into new forms in which the organizations, and ultimately, the tribes benefit from. The control of knowledge is the crux of an organization’s struggle for power, and more importantly, effectiveness. It is also then a leader’s biggest challenge in tomorrow’s businesses.

Compounding the issue is that the hyper speed in today’s world is making facts obsolete faster.

Therefore knowledge built upon certain facts becomes less durable. This has 2 key impacts:

– truth is fleeting <and decision making has small windows of opportunity>

– business has become more abstract <as knowledge streams non stop into and within an organization>.

Which now leads me to discuss speed.

inside out leader:Discerning between desire for speed and need for speed

Economics is now all accelerated <even if it isn’t really … we incessantly talk about it as if it is>. And all this accelerated pressure <speed> also shifts power by putting stress, and inevitably undermining, the fixed, bureaucratic chain of command.

Now <taking a step back>.

While everyone talks about a faster world today I would like to point out business has always had a love affair with speed. I would like to remind everyone that the second phase of the industrial revolution was focused on breaking apart production processes <and behavior associated> into the smallest portions with the intent to isolate and shrinking time to the most efficient pace possible.

I point that out because we have always desired speed. But we do not necessarily NEED speed. Speed is not only an addictive objective but an elusive one … the more you get the more you want.

I believe the new inside out leader will learn how to slow organizations down. They will need to be able to discern the difference between desire and need.

I don’t mean make them slow … but rather simply slow them down.

There are a variety of ways to do so but I would suggest the best, and easiest, is to embed the core purpose or vision of the organization within each employee.

Organizations will slow to think, and assess, only to speed up even faster. Only leaders can empower organizations to do this.

In conclusion.

Therefore this will be a new kind of leader stressing the central importance of character and virtue in a culture … focusing everyone on the basics … decency, doing the right thing, cooperation and that actions always have long-term consequences and doing it all as possible.

This changes decision-making from “if it makes money it is good” to “how does this fit within our purpose/direction?” will inevitably lead to smarter decisions and sometimes even adapted decisions <on the ground> all meeting a common purpose. It slows down the organization to think slightly but less so over time as ‘right thing’ becomes more & more obvious organizationally.

Outside in kind of worked because it not only generated money/revenue but in general a happier consumer who felt important <who doesn’t like that?>. But it also worked because this knowledge power created a newer faster ‘responder’ organization which permitted leaders to be lazier. They could build careers based only on responding and not foresight & consistency and makes gobs of money.

But.

“If its profitable do it” mentality is not an effective business management style because it doesn’t breed the organizational cohesiveness to balance against the individual freedom.

Conversely, “If it feels good do it” mentality is not an effective business management style unless grounded in some character/virtue.

Inside out leadership organizations will encourage individuality and individual freedom in the business decision making because it will also encourage individuals grounded in a vision based on character, virtue & organizational integrity.

I put these two quotes together on purpose which makes me say … who would have thought you could hear such an insightful thought from both ends of the spectrum – a woman who many believe ran our country for a period of time (if not absolutely influential on a variety of national programs) and a woman with amazing creative talent who dragged herself down into the depths of insecurity and loneliness?

And, yet, they both articulated the strength of “self.”

Ok. How about at least understanding that being true to yourself is the core to everything in life.

Now (part 1). True to yourself can actually be a tricky thing. It can be tricky because who you are today is NOT who you were yesterday. You learn, experience things, unlearn and while you may be grounded in integrity the trappings of you will shift & adapt.

Now (part 2). Life will do everything in its power to convince you that you have no clue what is ‘true to yourself.’

Society will do everything in its power to convince you that you not only have no clue what is ‘true to yourself’ but, also, if you have found your ‘true compass’ that your compass is pointed in the wrong direction.

Here is what I know.

I have learned, and know, you have to encourage people (and myself) to not let others drag you down.

I have learned, and know, your true compass doesn’t have to be defined in some words or be able to be described to people it just, well, points in the right direction.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t listen to others and accept constructive criticism but, in the end, you are you. You aren’t inferior unless you believe it to be so. You aren’t superior to anyone & anything. You listen and look at your compass.

It sounds simple. And it is simple. But incredibly difficult to do.

You can adapt. All people do. That’s what experiencing Life is all about. But don’t ignore North on your compass. The moment you decide to go east, west, even northwest … you have began compromising who and what you are. Stay pointed North.

“It didn’t work,” said the King. “The cloak of invisibility didn’t work.”“Yes, it did,” said the Royal Wizard.“No, it didn’t,” said the King. “I kept bumping into things, the same as ever.”“The cloak is supposed to make you invisible,” said the Royal Wizard. “It is not supposed to keep you from bumping into things.”“All I know is, I kept bumping into things,” said the King.”

—

James Thurber

============

So.

While this is about business in general it certainly taps into entrepreneurs & entrepreneurial attitudes and what happens once a business transitions from startup to ‘gravitas.’

Unreasonableness is very often a matter of perspective. In addition. being unreasonable is often not being some innovative disruptor but rather someone who prioritizes progress over, well, everything else.

Regardless. My favorite unreasonable example on this has to do with successful entrepreneurs. Unreasonable is status quo for becoming successful, yet, once successful, the people around the entrepreneur owner will most likely see the unreasonable as unreasonably risky (this creates some tension). In this situation the biggest issue is often the entrepreneur is comfortable doing things which may appear to have never done before, but once a business is up and running the team tends to seek things that have been done in the past <or “proven practices & things” from the past> to develop action plans. In this situation I am usually the jerk who says “most business success, in general, typically has a layer of idiosyncrasy <and context> that begs the ultimate question – can it really be copied?”

(I usually answer my own question: no)

Look. Here is a thought <to be applied with business book learning before you run off implementing everything you read> … as Henry Kissinger pointed out when discussing learning from history … “if you are seeking examples and exact parallelisms by studying history you will be disappointed. The study of history is the study of analogies.” However, all that said, I actually found an interesting business book. There is a relatively short book called ‘The Art of being Unreasonable” from a guy named Eli Broad.

I liked it for 4 reasons.

1. It was pretty short – I love it.

2. He suggests that rather than be a pioneer it is often better to be second with a new idea. – I love it.

3. He suggests that the best diversification may not be into an industry related to your own. – I love it.

4. The premise of the entire book is that the world has always been shaped by unreasonable people <ultimately they are the ones who force change>. – I love it.

The book did get me thinking and some thoughts which relate to the art of being unreasonable.

Business people often confuse safe with smart.

Safe may not be smart … because it is … well … just safe. Typically safe means less return <combined with less risk of course>. In fact it often translates into less return than the initial idea because it is … well … simply an extension of what is <smaller increments of growth>.

That (in simplistic terms) doesn’t mean bad return but rather diminishing return. Because it is, well, safe <okay … you get the point about safe>. Safe is hedging your bets. It is a sound strategy depending on what you would like to achieve. And it is a reasonable thing to do.

The book’s point is that isn’t what an entrepreneur <or business builders in general> is all about – being reasonable. They simply get convinced to do so by those around after their initial unreasonable-driven success (or sometimes they simply fear losing that has been gained).

Here is a silly thought. Maybe an unreasonable thought.

Entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs. To ask them to be anything other than what they are is fraught with peril.

As Broad points out there is a safe path (extension into a related industry) or a comfortable path (one that is an extension of him). By the way I love the distinction between safe and comfortable in this sense because to some people <me could be included here> safe can make some leaders uncomfortable, conversely, some leaders are quite comfortable with risk.

Now. I am not as smart as Eli.

But I have coached several businesses in a similar fashion. It makes them uncomfortable (the leader group) and excites the one (the leader). I often find myself negotiating between the desires of the organization formed behind the success of the leader/entrepreneur … and the entrepreneur themself.

It is an odd experience.

I would say in my experience that the entrepreneur gets dragged down into the dismal depths of the “reasonable” decision making organization. The main argument is businesses inherently desire to protect their success once they have shifted beyond the intial building. Now. I also admit I often walk away shaking my head in disappointment as the one who “built” defers to those who “protect” an investment under the guise of a “mature business people.”

What many business people don’t recognize is that building & protecting are different skills. Or, actually, they probably do but inevitably decisions need to be made that become a battle between comfortable and uncomfortable … and the seemingly reasonable and the unreasonable.

Last thought.I am not suggesting the unreasonable is always the path to walk because sometimes the unreasonable is really unreasonable <undoable, impractical, insane>.

However, there is an art to being unreasonable. An art that can lead to stunning success if it is fostered properly and encouraged <even if it is uncomfortable>.

The point?

Never totally disregard the unreasonable option & idea. It may not feel safe nor may it feel comfortable, but it may actually be one or both when viewed correctly.

“She believed in her own gravity, and she never considered escaping it.

The world isn’t improved by reading the personal tragedy that unfolded afterwards, but there’s also no fighting it—the power that lies in hearing her words is in the totality of its acceptance.”

—-

Spencer Kornhaber

<slightly edited quote>

=============

“As long as I know what I’ve done, I’m not gonna worry about what other people say or think I did.”

—

because only I know the truth

=====

Well …believed in her own gravity, and she never considered escaping it may be one of the strongest lines I have read. Why? No matter what anyone says:

Understanding yourself, who and what you are, is difficult.

Accepting yourself, who and what you are, is difficult.

Both of which, inevitably, makes believing in yourself extremely difficult.

Accepting less than perfection or accepting the fact you have imperfections is difficult.

Knowing you have flaws, even some destructive flaws, is difficult.

Both of which, inevitably, makes believing in yourself extremely difficult.

If you bundle all of those up, well, that is your gravity.

Now. For some reasons, some good and some bad, we always seem to want to fix or change our gravity <which seems … well … as I type that … kind of impossible and somewhat silly objective>.

Some people dislike their gravity and fight it, try and escape it, and some even suggest they want to “fly” as a version of showing their dislike for their own gravity.

To be clear <part 1>.

This gravity discussion is different than a “come to the edge and fly” Life discussion <that is about risk and trying to see what you are capable of>. This gravity discussion is about who and what you are. The things, good & bad, that ground you day in and day out as part of what makes you … well … you.

To be clear <part 2>.

Gravity can be defied.

Well. Let’s just say that you can learn to jump, fly or elevate <but you will inevitably get pulled back at some point>. So you can defy your gravity for moments in time.

All that said, gravity is, well, gravity. In other words, it remains no matter what else may happen as part of Life. Now. While everyone faces gravity, your version of gravity is different than someone else’s.

You may like someone else’s gravity more than your own. Shit. You may dislike gravity in general. It doesn’t really matter. You either believe in your own gravity or you end up fighting gravity your entire Life.

And that is where that opening quote is so powerful — such a strong Life idea. If you believe in your gravity, flaws and destructive qualities included, and do not try and escape it — you use what you have to the best of your ability rather than fight it.

You believe in your gravity, the good and bad, as part of what can create some space in the world for you and no one else.

You believe in your gravity, and understand it, and accept it, and believe it is what inevitably guides your feet down some path in Life.

By the way, this does not mean you are unapologetically comfortable with yourself, you may actually even find yourself slightly uncomfortable with your gravity, you just accept it and believe it inevitably makes you who you are.

And, in the end, I imagine if you do not try and escape your gravity you stop looking at other’s gravity, you stop listening to people telling you to try and change your gravity and, well, you decide to use your gravity to become the hero in your own story.

“I take up my old pen again – the pen of all my old unforgettable efforts and sacred struggles. To myself – today – I need say no more.

Large and full and high the future still opens. It is now indeed that I may do the work of my life.

I like these words.

For anyone approaching middle age, or wading through it, they may be the most useful words anyone has written, words that if we repeat often enough we may even start to act upon.

Words that could change our lives, or the long sweet stretch of it that is left.”

==

Henry James

<wrote in his early 50s>

—————————————

“We know that greatness doesn’t come from building walls, it comes from building opportunity.”

=

Obama

<note: the original quote has “America’s” before greatness>

————————-

Well.

Yesterday I wrote about ‘no chance means no chance.’ Looking back upon it while I don’t regret the truth, or pragmatism of it, I began recognizing I kept going back to it again and again … my fingers hovering over the pragmatic side of it and the ‘delete’ key and having my thoughts hover over the hope portion with itchy fingers, and itchy mind, to write more and talk about how glimpses of ‘having a chance’ are the things that often not only get us thru the day but get us thru life.

That is the power of words. A word has the power to change the way you think about things but maybe more importantly a word … yes … a single word … has the power to change your life <because what you think often begets what you do>.

A word can surely be a wall … but more often than not … a word is a building block for opportunity. Such a small thing is large and full and … well … high the future still opens.

And while that sounds big & sweeping and maybe easily dismissed as words of a dreamer and things that are nice to think about but will never happen … I would like to point out that for almost 20 years now the internet has brought more new & different words into our lives. These words are opportunities. These little things are big and full of the future.

Because of this seeming barrage of words our lives, our culture; our minds have been forever changed. There is no going back and there is no ‘giving back.’ Words when encountered remain your companion to be hugged, bewildered by, spurned, loved and shadows you wherever you go from that moment on.

Even on the days when we shut ourselves away from people and the bustle and grind of Life there will not be a single day in which you will not interact with words.

They are your constant companion <friend or foe>.

Whole companies are now dedicated to words.

Any search engine or browser company.

Any social media company.

Shit.

Whole industries these days have been developed solely on the use and management of words.

Your words beget their words. They organize words which inevitably force you & I to consider, an reconsider, words.

This means, at the core of our lives, is one simple thing … a word.

One word at a time our life is built.

One word at a time … opportunity … a dream … a hope … is built.

This means that a word, or combination of words, is the key to everyday life. The way we interpret a word can not only change the present but impact the future. One word can … well … actually change our behavior <Amazon is the most practical tactical example of this>.

Technology has actually given a word ‘super powers’ <and they were pretty frickin’ powerful before>. a word is no longer something we simply observed & absorbed … it now has acquired a more active role in life … it creates and impacts how we interact.

Simplistically. A word is a fundamental catalyst of Life.

Anyway.

It is impossible to imagine the world without words.

A word enables us to do things that maybe seem unthinkable.

A word encourages us to think … well … we have a chance.

And, maybe most of all, while I think of a word as the small key to greatness and opportunity I continue to think of the one syllable 4 letter word that is possibly the most powerful word in any language – hope.

Whenever I wonder why I sit in front of my computer and write I remember that words not only are the only constant companion we encounter every day but they are involved in almost every aspect of our lives. In some small way maybe I think of James’ words … “today – I need say no more. Large and full and high the future still opens. It is now indeed that I may do the work of my life.”

Weigh your words carefully today my friends … and take a moment and ponder the words you encounter … for most do not build walls but offer opportunities.

“The splendor of the rose and the whiteness of the lily do not rob the little violet of it’s scent nor the daisy of its simple charm.

If every tiny flower wanted to be a rose, spring would lose its loveliness.”

―

Thérèse de Lisieux

================

Ok.

I cannot think of one person I know who doesn’t think their day is full, their life is seemingly constantly stretched or feels like they do not have enough time to either <1> do what they want to do, or <2> do what they need to do.

I cannot think of one person I know who doesn’t think, at least on occasion, about whether that “full” really equals ‘full’ or if it actually doesn’t feel a little less than full and maybe even a little empty.

This empty or full discussion is one I tend to believe we have over and over and over again in our own minds. And, yes, 99% of the time it is in our own heads. Why? Well. Because discussing it with someone else is fraught with peril.

Most of us have clearly faced up to the fact that no one will have any compassion for your full life nor your emptiness. This is slightly weird because we all talk about being empathetic <I mean who the hell wants to say they have no compassion or empathy?> and, yet, most everyone is fairly sure their own ‘full/empty’ version is ‘fuller & emptier’ than anyone who would be bitching about theirs. That said, this empty/full discussion is all ours — alone.

Why? The harsh truth is that, in general, compassion and empathy on this topic is fairy difficult in practice.

Especially when it comes into conflict with people’s feelings about hard work, work in general <because ‘hard work’ is in the eyes of the beholder>, doing <what constitutes real ‘doing’ varies by person>, earning things and what someone does or doesn’t deserve. That is a fucking long list of shit to have people in potential conflict over.

This actually means, whether we like it or not, this discussion is actually one about character & self.

Ok.

Maybe this is more a discussion of “the individual” and deciding who and what you want to be as a person <beyond simply ‘doing’>.

Ok.

Maybe it is more a discussion of “if every flower wanted to be a rose spring would lose its loveliness.”

Ok.

This discussion is difficult <I imagine if it was not then we would never feel full and yet empty at the same time>. Measuring the individual against “the whole” is almost like breathing. We do it without even thinking. This doesn’t mean we ignore all the ‘individual’ stuff like personal skills of perseverance, curiosity, optimism and self-control.

But more likely than not somewhere along the way we make a not-entirely-conscious decision to prioritize areas of life, both in personal and business, in relation to other people. And this decision many times is less about us but rather driven by <a> the daily shit which fills up our days and <2> what society norms suggests ‘full’ looks like. As we do this we recognize <albeit painfully> that there is no ‘secret to success and work/life balance. The truth is that everyone just prioritizes how they see fit. And that is when we almost inevitably circle back to society <what a rose looks like> rather than simply just assess and do on our own.

Look.

Full but empty is a personal battle. I will not call this living in the inevitable rat race because I tend to lean toward the thought that everyone has an individual power to make a decision for the individual <and selectively ignoring societal norms and ‘cues’ just is not that difficult>. And, yet, I recognize that we are constantly ‘trained’ to push for the sake of pushing <under the guise of attaining higher and higher outcomes>. The problem with this ‘training’ is that it encourages us to “fill our lives” with what constitutes a fairly narrow view of success <which also quickly ‘fills’ your Life>.

I personally don’t think most people need to be trained to push themselves. I think most of us are hard-wired this way. In fact … I could argue that pushing yourself is not the problem. I could argue the ‘empty’ is mostly driven by a sense of failure which starts lightly coating <and ultimately suffocating> everything you do … regardless of how objectively successful you are.

=

“Somebody once said we never know what is enough until we know what’s more than enough.”

Billie Holiday

=

Society demands a lot of things of us. It sets up some fairly absurd rules and a shitload of damn stupid measurements. Society is society and I am not smart enough to be able to offer to everyone how to not be full but empty. But I can suggest a couple of things that could help.

Be consistent.

My gut tells me that at the core of being full but empty is that we chase shit. And by ‘chase shit’ I mean that with the intent to ‘fill up’ we start ‘checking off.’ That’s not really purpose driven nor living a life with a purpose … because it is simply chasing a moving list of things. Maybe I could just suggest avoiding being ‘two/three/four/five faced’ as you attack filling up your Life and just focus on one good face. And maybe try and keep that face facing forward as often as you can.

Freedom not control.

This is hard. Really hard. We want to control everything in our lives … including people and their actions. But in trying to control we actually tend to limit the freedom we should give Life to expand to its best … for us and those around us. Healthy productive people don’t like to be constrained by someone else. Why shouldn’t this pertain to ourselves and how we try and fill, or empty, our lives? <answer: it should pertain … and it is not different>.

So. Just to finish up for today. For some reason our ‘hallowed ground’ of happiness more often than not ends up in a dead end pursuit. And then we are stopped … and look at ‘full but empty’ footsteps behind us. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, life takes some real thinking with an open mind to nt end up at some dead end.

But maybe more importantly it takes the right attitude … if every tiny flower wanted to be a rose, spring would lose its loveliness

What I mean by that is because society and culture has encouraged us to think of ‘full’ as doing and tasks and outcomes … well … that means we all are, in some form or fashion, seeking to be a rose. And truth be told … we are a field of violets, sunflowers, lilies, astirs, and more … as well as roses .. and that is what makes Life look lovely.

And that, to me, is the key to this whole solving ‘full but empty’ thing. Ignore the roses … find out what flower you are and bloom.

“The best way to keep a prisoner from escaping is to make sure he never knows he’s in prison.”

—

Fyodor Dostoevsky

===========

Well.

There is a lot of discussion happening on re-injecting Purpose back into business, how that impacts business culture and methods to insure an aligned organization <so its not just words>. I have written about manufacturing a business culture before, using Zappo’s as an example, of how businesses try to inject someone else’s culture into their own business. And I think it is stupid and misguided <although one of the architects of the Zappo’s program gave me a nice note suggesting some leaders use it as an inspiration>.

That said.

There is something weird happening in this organizational culture development these days. I kind of call it the ‘generational culture gap.’ I call it that because I interact with both startups as well as established longer-life businesses which means I typically interact with different age leaders.

Longer life established businesses are more likely to be led by older business people who’s ‘pride in business’ most typically revolves around ‘pride in results.’ This was the generation borne of outcomes … quarterly reports, project completions, profitability standards and crap like that. The means, and aspirational meaningfulness, mattered significantly less than the results.

The startups are more likely business people with experience <it is a myth that it is mostly younger people who are the entrepreneurs> but their businesses are strewn with young idealistic people who have been bombarded with ‘propose – driven businesses’ crap. They have a concept of the importance of culture but ‘cool & entrepreneurial’ <with some aspects of social responsibility> takes on more importance than any real character, or personality, driven aspects in their culture.

The gap therefore exists between the two visions of what an organization should embrace. Naturally, the leaders try and compensate.

The older leaders try and manufacture a culture beyond ‘results’ <I call it ‘bolting on a soul’>.

The younger leaders try and manufacture a culture based on ‘enjoyment or passion’ <I call it ‘bolting on results’>.

In doing so, both are creating prisons for their employees.

What do I mean? Somewhere along the way we have started thinking of building a culture as, well, building – as if we can ‘construct’ an intangible. This is not instilling a pride in making something <and the ‘building culture’ is not building but rather a derivative of the making pride>.

By the way <on a separate note> I would also point out that this manufacturing culture contributes to the divide between urban/rural & corporate/blue collar. In a business world where more and more <about 75% I believe> of our GDP is based on not making shit <i.e., financial services, banking, services for the things that are made> those manufactured business cultures look absurd to the people who work in businesses who actually work to make shit.

Anyway.

Business is tough enough these days without having to worry about what type of business, culturally, it will be. Typically this issue is of higher importance to the younger generation than it is to the older generations.

Older generations have a tendency to look at a job as a job and will I get to do what I am good at and get paid for it.

Younger generations are actually better at realizing the business life is an extension of the personal life, or vice versa, therefore the culture is a higher importance.

Now. Combine the leadership challenges with the fact businesses are struggling to figure out how to not only attract young talent but actually LOOK attractive to young talent and this becomes a formula for disaster <or, at least, some poor decisions>.

And that is stupid. People don’t but features they buy benefits. Same with companies.

Features? In other words, selling to young people on why they should be working some place not based on what company does but rather what the company will do for them or give to them.

So what are these leaders doing?

Manufacturing a culture. Yeah. I just typed ‘manufacturing.’ I maybe could have said ‘culture engineering.’ Maybe I could have said ‘build a prison.’

Many businesses aren’t building a culture because they <a> believe in it or <b> believe they actually have a natural culture worth a shit … but rather because they want to encourage loyalty. Sometimes they do it simply because everyone is telling them to do it. And sometimes they can make that prison look amazing.

That said. Its a prison.

Beware the leaders who build prisons you only see as paradise.

Beware the leaders who seek to ‘build’ a culture.

It is quite possible all this ‘building’ is a reflection of the poor management training we gave the rising leaders. It is also quite possible it is the repercussions of an ‘outcome generation’ who lost sight of everything but outcomes.

It is quite possible that this is a reflection of leaders, who do not really know how to lead, and believe this ‘building a company culture’ is most effective under the title of ‘the cult of personality.’

Regardless.

I believe these culture prisons are actually more about the semi-insidious concept of engineering of company culture. This concept is fostered by the leaders, who are really assholes, but set out to build ‘a company people love to work at.’ <note: an asshole is not capable of truly building an environment in which people will ‘love what they do.’>

Now. Many of these prisons don’t look like prisons.

Well. Until you try and escape or try and do things that don’t quite fit within the warden’s rules.

Look.

A healthy company culture doesn’t really take a shitload of work, should actually be a reflection of the standard beliefs and behavior of the leadership and is the kind of stuff that gets a company through the hard times <doubles the joys and halves the griefs>.

But today we seem inclined to view building culture as building prisons. All I can say in conclusion is, well, that is not the way a company culture evolves.